Seneca College Crashes again, minor injuries.

[pdw]

**IT Happens.

Too many accidents just like that ... and even to the best of them.

[Big Pistons Forever]

The landing windsock observation (?kts and whether N,S, E or W) would be difficult to predict. Will await the final report to hear whether rwy 3, 36 or 180 used.

Strong variable (many directions) in regions around Greenbank airport at 17:50 local time July 24 / 2012, ... using closest Wunderground weather station histories (30-40 km).

What is your point ? A competent instructor will either help the student deal with the wind, or take over if things are getting unsafe and continue the landing or go around if the wind exceeds the limits of the aircraft. In every case there should never be any bent metal landing a C 172 with an instructor on board. The C 172 is the easiest airplane to land ever made !

[Colonel Sanders]

should never be any bent metal landing a C 172 with an instructor on board

Yes, but ...

The C 172 is the easiest airplane to land ever made!

[Colonel Sanders]

Too many accidents just like that ... and even to the best of them

I couldn't agree less. This is a perfect example of pilot
error. A 172 is not a challenging aircraft to land. In fact,
as BPF points out, it doesn't get any easier.

Attitudes like "it happens" ensures that these kinds of
entirely preventable accidents will continue to happen.

Scratch the surface of any 172 landing accident, and I
guarantee you will find a serious problem with stick
and rudder skills, and judgement.

But in our brave new world, it's ok to crash airplanes.

[pdw]

Thanks all. I disagree a little bit (although I get the drift) since I see a 172 as equally susceptible to decreased performance shears as any aircraft. Recovery maybe better. But it can be unusually quick to drop speed too if there's enough knots to the windshift ... which is what the point is ... whether this had been in Alberta on a Saturday aft (very experienced) or on a Tuesday in Ontario.

True, the instructor has to know to 'get out of there' where its too strong

[Cough Syrup]

Pun intended?

[pdw]

I see what you mean, no ... figured it looked OK in the preview. Not intentional as a pun, but its true ... I do understand what is being said there.

[GyvAir]

The pun was the only part that made sense to me from this particular strand of the thread.

[pto]

Seneca has done an excellent job of removing flight training from their program. For instance, after an accident involving crosswinds about a decade ago, they put restrictions on the max xwinds a pilot is allowed to fly in. This creates a pilot who is inexperienced in xwinds. Then, Seneca hires those pilots back as new instructors. And asks them to teach the new class how to fly in xwinds. What?

The instrutor involved in the accident in Greenbank was clearly inexperienced. The 172 is plenty powerful enough to correct a poor approach, or overshoot.

Sidenote: I hear that Seneca is currently working to get a new licence approved that will allow them to trade flight time for sim time. Outstanding idea to save money. Not a great way to fix hands and feet.

Please stop focusing on CRM, and start focusing on flying.

[pdw]

The instructor involved in the accident in Greenbank was clearly inexperienced. The 172 is plenty powerful enough to correct a poor approach, or overshoot.

Still, when teaching the steeper approaches into any shorter grass-strip ... occasionally requires beyond 'quick thinking' to intervene, even when the student is using the 172. No controller here to give last second winds. With sudden overrunning of this chosen runway area by much higher WNW quartering tail wind-strength (if landing 3 into the NE breeze), or equally when its the 'reduction' (if using 34 which is lee of the hills), simply leaves it high-and-dry (IAS too low) in few short seconds. Will wait to see the final report.

[Colonel Sanders]

I feel like I am having my head dragged through mush.

A 172 is capable of landing in 500 feet. I have done it
many times myself. It is probably the most forgiving
airplane to fly on the planet. There is ample room for
error on almost any runway under any conditions. It
takes quite a lot of creativity to screw the pooch in a
172 during landing.

As far as winds go ... there are plenty of people here
who don't think I'm much of a pilot. Fair enough. But
at an airshow I flew in Central America, we did head-on
takeoffs and landings in the Pitts S-2C, and I had a 20
knot tailwind for takeoff and landing, and it was no problem
at all.

I am sure the future Four Gold Bars here are much better
pilots than I am, and can easily handle a variable wind in
a 172, for God's sake.

[5x5]

No controller here to give last second winds.

I'm not picking on you specifically, but this kind of statement worries me a bit because it reflects a bit a common thought process in a number of new pilots these days. Looking for outside input and direction rather than taking responsibility for their own actions.

You should always be flying the airplane according to what you see out the window. Nothing bugs me more than students putting in crosswind inputs that aren't required (or more commonly not when they are required) because "the windsock/ATIS said there was such and such winds". The external input is only for information so you can perhaps anticipate certain conditions, but you HAVE to fly what you are actually experiencing in the moment. Unfavourable reported conditions help the most by allowing you to preset your brain that an overshoot will be much more likely, but the actual decision to do it has to be because of what you actually experience. Perhaps a precautionary would be a good idea if the winds are suspected to be problematic.

[North Shore]

The instructor involved in the accident in Greenbank was clearly inexperienced. The 172 is plenty powerful enough to correct a poor approach, or overshoot.

Still, when teaching the steeper approaches into any shorter grass-strip ... occasionally requires beyond 'quick thinking' to intervene, even when the student is using the 172. No controller here to give last second winds. With sudden overrunning of this chosen runway area by much higher WNW quartering tail wind-strength (if landing 3 into the NE breeze), or equally when its the 'reduction' (if using 34 which is lee of the hills), simply leaves it high-and-dry (IAS too low) in few short seconds. Will wait to see the final report.

What are you babbling about, pdw? This gobbledygook came up in the Porter thread also..all sorts of bs about odd tailwinds etc...and now about controllers giving last-second wind corrections. I've never, in my career of going on 20 years, ever heard a controller or FSS give a last second wind before I didn't see/feel it myself

[pdw]

"20 years" ago they gave you the winds short final every time as the student, even when with an instructor. When windshear was present you knew about it everytime. Understanding the windspeeds as they affected each approach, circuit after circuit, helped to build an understanding of crosswinds and how each one affects the landing.

[Doc]

**IT Happens.

Too many accidents just like that ... and even to the best of them.

This is the attitude that pisses me off about this industry more than any other! %$IT does NOT happen. Morons happen! There is NO excuse for rolling airplane up in pretty little balls of bent aluminum and then making a comment like that. Find another industry. This attitude has NO place here!

[Doc]

"20 years" ago they gave you the winds short final every time as the student, even when with an instructor. When windshear was present you knew about it everytime. Understanding the windspeeds as they affected each approach, circuit after circuit, helped to build an understanding of crosswinds and how each one affects the landing.

If an instructor can't "feel" the winds on EVERY landing, "circuit after circuit..." he should be flipping burgers at a truck stop!!!!! There is NO excuse for the "couldn't care less....lets blame somebody else attitude here. BTW, who were the "they" that gave you wind checks on final at small non-controlled airports "20 years ago"??????
Excuses, excuses........Go flip burgers.

[Doc]

The instructor involved in the accident in Greenbank was clearly inexperienced. The 172 is plenty powerful enough to correct a poor approach, or overshoot.

Still, when teaching the steeper approaches into any shorter grass-strip ... occasionally requires beyond 'quick thinking' to intervene, even when the student is using the 172. No controller here to give last second winds. With sudden overrunning of this chosen runway area by much higher WNW quartering tail wind-strength (if landing 3 into the NE breeze), or equally when its the 'reduction' (if using 34 which is lee of the hills), simply leaves it high-and-dry (IAS too low) in few short seconds. Will wait to see the final report.

Do you actually fly? Where DID you come up with this drivel?

[pto]

I started out flying gliders, entirely at uncontrolled aerodromes, so never once did I get 'last minute winds'.... That's a pretty weak argument.

Whatever happened to the precautionary landing? Low overflight to check the winds on arrival, and look at the condition of the field? When I trained, that was the procedure. What are they teaching now? These poor kids are all going to be frightened of wind!

[pdw]

I did not have the opportunity to do an off airport approach until well after the flight-test. Sorry Doc, didn't read your earlier two posts (1st and 2nd) til yesterday morning, ... was looking to answer your last question (I had to look up the word ... drivel). Your 1st was re a miscalculated response to the photo at the top.

PTO, the wind indication in the wider area shows variable and was also being sheltered by new Greenbank buildings (twice the height of the windsock ... google earth), ... no smoke (fire ban) and no water close by to observe waves for wind direction. I don't buy the statements that all winds/crosswinds for landing can be 'seen and/or felt' accurately without indication, .. esp if you are that new student or a newer instructor teaching the new student.

[Shiny Side Up]

I don't buy the statements that all winds/crosswinds for landing can be 'seen and/or felt' accurately without indication, .. esp if you are that new student or a newer instructor teaching the new student.

New student? No. New instructor? Damn well better be able to. Ain't rocket science to figure out which way the wind is blowing if its at any ammount to affect your landing.

Then again though, someone I know had an argument with an instructor which way the wind sock works. Since he could not get the instructor to change his mind, he made up a montage of pics showing them landing with tailwinds. Repeatedly. Mildly humorous if it wasn't so alarming the lack of ability these days.

[Cat Driver]

This has to be the stupidest fu.kin thread ever to have been seen on the internet.

[Colonel Sanders]

., I keep telling you that no one cares how well
you fly. No one cares how well your aircraft is maintained.
No one cares if you crash all the time.

All that matters is your paper.

[Big Pistons Forever]

This has to be the stupidest fu.kin thread ever to have been seen on the internet.

I disagree. I think Seneca has some serious systemic problems in how they are running their program. Most of the posts make what in my opinion are valid points on why this "accident" is anything but. In addition I would suggest that for those contemplating going to this college, this thread represents information they might wish to consider.....

[Colonel Sanders]

Seneca has some serious systemic problems

Could be, but they have paper, so I'm not sure many people care.

[Rookie50]

I agree with the comments. If instead of teaching how to control the aircraft in wind, you run away from the problem by restricting the activity, you are perpetuating the problem and creating poorly trained ppls and instructors. These accidents should never be (just something that happens!). If my engine on my well maintained AC throws a rod, ( i know one this happened to, performed a successful forced approach) maybe that is "something that happens". I was taught in both healthy crosswinds and strong outright winds early, and developed a comfort and competence with them. A 172 can easily land in a 15 knot direct, gusty crosswind and outright 30 knot winds ( likely can handle a bit more). If I'm not sure on the winds turning final, the airplane will tell you, just allow it to weathervane into the wind and crab down final until correcting to a slip short final. Should be a routine event. A tough but still routine one is try to land in a 22 knot, gusty, 60 -70 degree crosswind, short, 35 foot wide ICE covered runway, in a lightly loaded 172. Still kept it centered on landing. ( and stayed off the brakes). Crosswinds are like other facets of aviation, just need regular practice.